Believing/Not believing in evolution - Does this have to mean what we define it as?

Firstly I would like to state that I am not entirely sure of my beliefs, and that this thread is simply a hypothesis without a great amount of
evidence, studying, personal experience, or anything substantial. It is simply an idea I want to throw out to a more open-minded forum to see what is
thought...

When a person of x faith claims they do not believe in evolution, are we interpreting it correctly? - Are they?

Firstly, I have not met a person of any faith, religion, belief that does not believe in evolution of animals besides ourselves ( as far as it's come
up in conversations I've had with people of different beliefs ) They all believe that animals can mutate, change, and evolve over time. Many of these
people do believe HOMO SAPIENS are not the result of evolution.

That brings up my question/though process.

In many religions, things can be taken differently based on perspective, based on the context. Many religions are formed from the same basic words
based on how man interprets what they are taught, what they read, what they believe to find within their own experiences. Somewhere along the line, it
seems, several creationist-based religions have taken what they have learned one way or another, and came up with the conclusion that man is not the
result of evolution, but rather created by God.

What does that mean, though? Does it mean everything we are was planted on this earth by an outer source? Methinks no.

What I hypothesize is that people may be interpreting the evolution factor wrongly, that perhaps our bodies did come from a ancestor and evolved into
the flesh-bags we now walk around in, perhaps the part of evolution that could not have taken place on this earth is our spirit, our soul.

Maybe it is our soul that could not have come from any evolutionary process, maybe it's our inner mind, our spirit, our energy source, consciousness,
or soul that came from elsewhere, maybe this is where the religious roots of " No evolution " came from, maybe it is to assert that WHO we are ( as
opposed to WHAT we are ) is not a result of run of the mill evolution, but rather a greater process. This may be what we should ascertain from
religious teachings of evolution ( or anti-evolution )

Im not sure if there needs to be a real term for it, its pretty much just science fact.

If you chose to believe that God made the world as it is now 6,000 years ago that is your prerogative.

What is a matter of absolute fact however is that the world is the way that it is now and thats that. We have bigger issues to be wasting our time
pondering that WHY everything is as it is when theres things we can actually think about and work out and solve which sucks, like homeless people,
energy production and maintenance and so on and so forth.

it seems, several creationist-based religions have taken what they have learned one way or another, and came up with the conclusion that man is
not the result of evolution, but rather created by God. What does that mean, though? Does it mean everything we are was planted on this earth by an
outer source?

Not unless you happen to be a scientologist for the most part...

IF you're talking about Christianity, it means we were created out of "dust"... 6000 years or so ago...

Only part of which is actually logical...

the funny part is that the dust part actually true... and the 6k years ago creation, not so much...

That is basically based on the genealogy from Adam to Jesus found within the bible, some genius came up with this idea by calculating those
generations

Possibly the reincarnation of the guy that came up with the talking snake...

Make it a black and white issue, that people have to line up on, and people will do so with out any thought.

Divide and conquer.

Even simplifying it to one issue as Evolution, when its much deeper, is wrong.

As to the actual question,

NO, being a Theist does not negate belief in evolution.

Nor does belief in Evolution negate belief in a deity, judeo christian or otherwise.

I am sure people will tell you what their Clergy has told them, or their Organized religion.

For that Matter so can the laymen do the same for science concepts,

Both, are probably incorrect or at the least grossly miss-informed on both topics.

There seems to be this thought, that is put forth, that two intelligent people can't look at the same set of data, understand it, and come to two
separate conclusions.

And can lead arguments for or against most topics to rely on an appeal to authority, rather than a real understanding of the subject matter.

It leads to misunderstanding all around.

There is a disconnect from Philosophy in science, that is often touted as a virtue, and for the most part it is. Science, should just be science, it
is a process, a tool for understanding. NOT A PHILOSOPHY.

It will answer the mechanics of the "how", will it ever answer the why? Well, not yet at least, for now its up to subjective interpretation.

Many theist view Science wrong,

If they are correct, Science, is the study of penmen ship of God himself.

I kinda disagree. I think the Science vs. religion argument is very black and white.

Either your chosen religion is an accurate or semi accurate account of the history and origins of the world or we made it all up to explain the
unexplainable. Either it's true or it's not.

If it was viewed as a philosophy not a religion . Then I would agree. But since it's viewed as the " truth" and so is science. Then only one
can be right.

I'm an atheist that's open to the agnostic side. IMHO all religions have been losing members since science started disproving the ancient texts
testable theories. ( Noah, creation story, exc) because of this they have started hiring scientists to confuse people and make false claims. The same
way the lead and tobacco industries did when they were faced with losing a large portion of there business. The same way big oil/coal is doing with
climate change. Anyone who actually watched an inconvenient truth. Knows it's correctly predicted quite a bit. But as long as we continue to worship
the all mighty dollar. What's profitable will always be worth lying over and the bigger religions are VERY profitable.

I actually don't think this subject is as black and white as most people make it out to be. Even though I'm not your normal believer I do believe in
God but I also believe in evolution. The bible is up to interpretation I don't think when the bible speaks of God creating us that it was some magic
trick and happened in an few short seconds I think it was more that he made evolution happen he "put all the tools here" so to speak for evolution
to take place. Just like when you pray to him he doesn't just automatically give you what you asked does he?

The religion I was brought up in teaches that a thousand years here is one day where God resides, thus 6,000 years, accordingly, would be more like
2.2 billion years. Not sure exactly what was going on back then

The religion I was brought up in does believe God and science are one. That God was once a human, died, went back into spiritual form and based on a
maturation or learning process, transcended to the position of a god. It's believed he understands science completely, and that all he does can be
explained through science.

That is the stance that I take. That God is a master chemist, if you will, and we do accordingly revere and honor all he's created.

I kinda disagree. I think the Science vs. religion argument is very black and white.

Either your chosen religion is an accurate or semi accurate account of the history and origins of the world or we made it all up to explain the
unexplainable. Either it's true or it's not.

If it was viewed as a philosophy not a religion . Then I would agree. But since it's viewed as the " truth" and so is science. Then only one
can be right.

I'm an atheist that's open to the agnostic side. IMHO all religions have been losing members since science started disproving the ancient texts
testable theories. ( Noah, creation story, exc) because of this they have started hiring scientists to confuse people and make false claims. The same
way the lead and tobacco industries did when they were faced with losing a large portion of there business. The same way big oil/coal is doing with
climate change. Anyone who actually watched an inconvenient truth. Knows it's correctly predicted quite a bit. But as long as we continue to worship
the all mighty dollar. What's profitable will always be worth lying over and the bigger religions are VERY profitable.

And from the very first sentence you equally misunderstand the very concept of religion, its not Science.

If you wan't to get into a theological debate one what various religions ACTUALLY believe, vs what their adherents preach we could.

Several I can think of embrace Science.

Buddhism being a major one,

The problem is, that people take the Data science provides, and try to turn it into something its not.

Same with religion for that matter, it comes down to a very fundamental misunderstanding on both sides.

Science only provides data, not reasons, far to often Scientist, Politicize Science, mistaking the very place of UNBIASED observation as
Pontificating orators spouting their own personal materialist philosophy.

I am a Theist, my claim to "knowing" Is no greater than an Atheist, the stances are equally absurd from an Unbiased objective stance.

NO data yet provided disproves a Deity or proves one, we live in a world with NO unified theory, spouting about how much we know for sure.

Yet you can't prove to me that this, everything around us, was not simply turned on yesterday with a preset list of parameters to run a simulation.
From a subjective stand point theres no way to tell RIGHT NOW, one day their could be.

Agnostic is the only truly "scientific" stance, everyone else is blowing smoke about their subjective personal opinions, using misunderstandings of
the very nature of what Science and Religion even are.

The religion I was brought up in teaches that a thousand years here is one day where God resides, thus 6,000 years, accordingly, would be more like
2.2 billion years. Not sure exactly what was going on back then

That is a little easier to swallow at least... considering we've found civilizations that predate the 6k marker

My husband should be the one to tackle this. He's the scientist in the family. He feels no conflict whatsoever between God and evolution although he
feels that evolution itself is often mis-taught. It does not claim to explain where life ultimately came from only how it developed since it's
beginnings. He does feel that evolution is incomplete based on his experiences and knowledge as a microbiologist and feels that the almost fundamental
zealot devotion to the basic idea of evolution is getting in the way of real research that should be done to expand our understanding of the way that
organisms change over time.

I am Christian. I am Christian not because I want to be, but simply because I believe it is the truth. Now you say many religions believe evolution
can occur to animals, but not humans. That is not an entirely accurate representation of the argument I see presented the most.

You see the problem I have with Evolution is people try to say Macro-evoltuion is supposedly micro-evolution over a very lengthy period of time.
Problem i have with that is nothing of the sort can be observed now or in the fossil record. A true change of kinds has never been observed, but
rather what we see is that there seems to be some form of species limitation. Lizards stay lizards. Apes stay Apes. People stay people. Are their
genetic modifications to these species yes, but do they ever change from being the kind of animal they were? As far as we can observe no.
Macro-evolution attempts to explain major morphological novelties most of which are still unsolved. You see there is a major difference in putting
your faith in God, and putting your faith in Science. If you have faith in Science, then in order to claim something as fact you definitely
shouldn't have to put the word Theory behind it when your talk about it. You see people jump the gun on evolution because there are some articles
that try and pretty it up, but it still has major problems. If you are going to claim to follow Science then be intelligent about your position and be
honest. We don't know.

I personally dont try to divide Science and religion. I believe the two go hand in hand, and it was of course because of religion that Science even
came about. It is only recently that people have been trying to say you must choose Science or Religion rather than Science and Religion.

I believe the Bible because it is the only ancient religion that holds true when you compare it to Science imo.

I disagree about the 7 day creation + a thousand years to us is a day to god theory.

IMHO a day is not a subjective amount of time. An hour and a minute are human creations. A day should be the same to us as to god.... One spin on the
earths axis. From any view a day would be the same.

I don't think science and the bible match at all. For everything that could be interpreted to match what science has found. There are ten things
that absolutely positively do not match.

People don't wanna throw out years of belief and faith. So they try and shoe horn there personal beliefs into science. Just like with intelligent
design. The questions evolution has left that insinuate intelligent design scientifically point to us being seeded by aliens or panspermia. Not the
Hebrew god.

All of science believes in evolution. All of the religions believe in evolution as well, except for the evangelicals in America. All of the common
creationist talking points have been debunked except for the origin of life part.

The fossil record proves evolution. You can track life on earth from single cell organisms to more and more complex life.

Science popped up in spite of religion. Yes the early scientists were religious ( almost none are now) but almost all were persecuted. The dark ages
were doily caused by society giving absolute athority to the church.

The fossil record proves evolution. You can track life on earth from single cell organisms to more and more complex life.

Science popped up in spite of religion. Yes the early scientists were religious ( almost none are now) but almost all were persecuted. The dark ages
were doily caused by society giving absolute athority to the church.

Lol show me that evidence intw fossil record . single cell to land dwelling with lungs

They won't consider that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

They ignore the fact that the overwhelming amount of evidence more than confirms the theory of evolution, because they think unless they actually
witness a monkey shape-shifting into a man in a suit and tie then it's an evil scientific/secular conspiracy because they hate Jesus/Allah w/e.

The fossil record proves evolution. You can track life on earth from single cell organisms to more and more complex life.

Science popped up in spite of religion. Yes the early scientists were religious ( almost none are now) but almost all were persecuted. The dark ages
were doily caused by society giving absolute athority to the church.

Lol show me that evidence intw fossil record . single cell to land dwelling with lungs

Servant. I have personally shown you several examples.
It's not our place to educate you. It takes years of study to be able to discern what your asking. How about you do some research so that you can
understand. Then when your done, you post what you've learned. But i know that wont happen, because you don't want to change your mind.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.